“Expelled the movie” is being sued by Yoko Ono, in what may be the best thing she ever did.It seems our less-than-honest friends at Expelled not only lied to viewers about the intellectual viability of an invisible man in the sky, but they also used IMAGINE without permission. Lennon’s song is anything but religious, and Yoko wants to make sure her husband’s name is not used for such tripe.
Yoko Ono is suing the producers of a movie that challenges the concept of Darwinian evolution, saying they used the song “Imagine” without her permission and led the blogosphere to accuse her of “selling out.” …Ono’s lawsuit claims the producers did not ask for permission either because they knew they could not get it or because they did not want to pay for the rights. It objects to the way “Imagine” is listed in the film’s credits, saying it suggested to members of the news media and others that the song’s use had been approved. “Internet ‘bloggers’ immediately began accusing Mrs. Lennon of ’selling out’ by licensing the song to defendants,” says the complaint, filed this week. The lawsuit calls “Imagine” Lennon’s signature song, saying it “has become closely associated with and is synonymous with John Lennon.” The complaint, which also names other firms involved with the movie, asks the court to stop the filmmakers from distributing, selling and promoting the movie, and it seeks financial damages. It was filed on behalf of Ono, Lennon’s sons Sean and Julian, and EMI Blackwood Music Inc.
Instead, check out the Forgiving the Franklins Movie, which looks more interestinghttp://www.forgivingthefranklinsthemovie.com/press/atheist.pdf
KnowledgeIsPower:
Really? I consider it to be strong evidence that consciousness is not a manifestation of brain activity.
Are you referring to me??and exactly how did you arrive at that conclusion?
No argument on historical behaviors, but Scripturally, (and I apologize for my inability to put it any better way) but you?re simply flat-out wrong.
It?s ?For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.? ? James 2:26, which when read contextually is simply not what you?ve asserted.
It wasn?t an ?appeal to authority?, it was simply a statement of fact.
And a, (ahem) former atheist.
If I had the time?
Not unless you?ve sensed another presence.
What do you mean by ?AI??
There are gazillions of sects that claim to be Christian-based in their doctrine, but as the Reformers so astutely observed, Scripture is the ultimate authority?and any form of pantheism is demonstrably contradicted by it.
Another Scripturally incompatible concept.
Nothing.
?and tell me, what happens when society goes bad?like Nazi Germany?
My apologies, in my haste, I omitted the qualifying phrase ?and if one also has the predilection for megalomania??atheism, with its Post Modern relativism, is an ideal incubator for such a regime.
Jesus Christ sputtered:
So were you, oh great unconscious one.
alatham:
Not just memory; but distinct manifestations of personality traits that are not ?thought driven.? As I said to KIP, this is considerable evidence that consciousness is a separate entity from the physical brain.
You consider a ?mere? seventy cases (that were studied, not to mention how many others that may actually exist) to be ?statistically insignificant,? or just ?anomalous data?? That sounds like a scientific double standard on your part.
While Catholicism is steeped in ?sacramental? theology (one appropriates God?s grace by receiving the ?Sacraments, rightly administered?) it also openly acknowledges the free gift of God?s grace?yes?s it?s confusing (and, in my opinion, confused), but that?s why there was a Reformation. Scripturally, it is unambiguous, Christ?s atoning sacrifice was both necessary and sufficient for us to be able to accept His grace. Scripturally, no ?works? are required.
I would be interested in hearing more about that.
Again, referring to what I said to KIP, it doesn?t require omniscience to be able to recognize another presence.
Because there?s nothing Biblical to indicate otherwise. We are created beings that have a distinct moment of creation. There is nothing Scriptural to support the notion that our souls have existed prior to our conceptions.
Again, we are the created, not the creator.
Language, by its very nature is an imperfect tool, but it?s all we have to understand each other and our history. Educating oneself of the cultural and archaeological environment that a document was written in sheds enormous light on what can be taken as its intended meanings.
Because, by definition, it reduces the concepts of right and wrong to a subjective, personal choice. Attitudes toward abortion are a prime example; some believe it to be a matter of personal convenience, while others regard it as premeditated murder. Both can?t be right, but both are based on our concept of what is or isn?t ?moral.?
But that statement is logically self-defeating. If God is God, then He created reality.
You said it yourself. Presently, you have chosen not to believe one way or the other.
And that?s why I was asking about personal experiences. In order to love someone, do you not have to have a relationship with that person? And doesn?t a relationship consist of shared experiences? And in order to enter into a relationship, don?t both parties have to mutually be willing to do so?
I extend the apology I gave KIP to you on that. I omitted a vital, qualifying phrase (see my post to him above).
JC,
Yes, in much the same way that electricity is a separate entity from a generator.
No smelly god-idea needed.
You conveniently ignored my usage of ‘body’ rather than ‘brain’.
I was being facetious. Transfered consciousness could be considered a form of reincarnation.
Matthew 7:21-27
Clearly it is you who are wrong.
It most certainly does: works, as this verse illustrates, are an inherent part of christian theology.
A fact without an argument is like ink without paper. If you weren’t intending to make an argument, why present the fact?
Trivial: all theists are former atheists.
…and if he had an argument.
More like ‘I’ ceased to be present.
Artificial Intelligence.
Maybe. Or maybe, as I understand the argument goes, monotheists are the reformers and changed scripture to better suit their theistic beliefs.
Who says they went bad? Wait, wait… I think I know the answer to this one… Might it be that society decided the Nazi’s got it wrong?
Again, present your argument. Simply saying that atheism is an ideal incubator doesn’t demonstrate that it is.
Hardly a double-standard: the study uses statistical correlation as the basis for its argument. Because we all know that there are vastly more transplants than 70 in a given month, what our friend has done is reduce the amount of data being examined until a ’statistically significant’ correlation is revealed. Thus the saying ‘There are liars, there are damned liars, and statisticians’.
Its really just an argument over the definition of eternal as in ‘eternal soul’. If by eternal we mean ‘has no beginning and without end’, the soul would exist ‘before’ conception. If, however, by eternal we mean simply ‘without end’, then the soul may be created at whatever point in time you like. I personally prefer to think that eternal means that time is irrelevant. Thus words like ‘before’ cease to have meaning.
You seem to have the usual temporal hang-ups of someone who doesn’t think in mathematics. See my comment above.
See the above comment. You might like to read this article:
http://machineslikeus.com/articles/CanGodExist.html
In short: no. There are many relationships I have entered into as an involuntary party.
I think I’ve addressed everything I wanted to.
I would also like to say that if we are going to argue about scripture, the best argument is to actually use scripture.
Can’t…resist:
Living in a little fantasy world, are we? The last time it was tried, it was an 88% failure rate.
Nobody cares about Anthony Flew.
Your “I received a young man’s heart, & I wanted beer & KFC” is just so anecdotal.
C.S Lewis was a witless poseur.
Semantical gymnastics are pretty, but it boils down to this:
Horton heard a WHO? Problem is, it was imaginary.
Really, Sloppy McGuire, your supernatural gyrations are just pathetic.
Subtract the WHO from your ‘epistemology’, & guess what? It collapses like a house of c_ards.
KnowledgeIsPower:
No, I was staying on topic with alatham (i.e. evidence that thoughts are a manifestation of consciousness). But since it?s everybody?s favorite get-out-of-jail-free card here, I believe you?ll have a difficult time proving the negative that consciousness does not persist after death.
I doubt you?ll take my word for it, but that passage (like the one in James), when put in context, is not referring to having to do specific works to curry God?s favor. They?re both about what one?s motives are. If they?re self-serving, God will know. But if they?re genuine, then they?re done out of grateful response to God?s grace through one?s faith. We can?t change God?s mind about us, we have to change our minds about God.
Again, that?s not what James is saying there. He?s saying that if one says one has faith and doesn?t act on it, then it?s not faith at all?it?s just lip-service. Belief is cheap, but faith, if it is real, sooner or later will require the one professing it to either have to act on it or abandon it.
That?s an interesting assertion given that I have no memories of ever considering myself an atheist.
Then I take it you?ve never sensed another presence.
But there?s no evidence that Strong AI is even attainable?and even if it was, can it truly be self-aware, or better yet, can it be proved to be self-aware?
Wow, are you saying that Luther, et. al. rewrote the Bible? If so, I?d like to see your evidence.
Ah yes, perhaps under other more ?enlightened? circumstances society would approve of genocide, concentration camps, sterilization of ?undesirables,? totalitarian government, etc.
Hmmm? I guess Stalinist Russia and the Khmer Rouge were just aberrant environments.
So that adulterated the cases that were studied?
I thought I was being clear by what I meant, but obviously not. Your second definition was pretty much what I was talking about.
That?s an interesting conclusion you?ve drawn?
Interesting… that is, up to points 9 and 10:
That implies that God had no choice in the matter of creating space-time. Correct me if I?m wrong, but I didn?t see any argument on that site claiming that God could not exist unto Himself or suffered under an obligation to create anything.
My apologies again. I was referring to a relationship of affection.
Agreed, but also with the mutual understanding that doing so should require a minimum of due diligence in keeping the passages in question in proper context by both parties.
You were addressing my comment and replying to me. However, considering that it may be difficult to keep two parallel conversations separate, I’ll just remind you that you still haven’t addressed my point that the study can be easily interpreted as evidence of consciousness being inseparable from the body than as consciousness persisting after death: clearing the transplanted organs never died, otherwise we’d have two dead people rather than one.
I haven’t the slightest idea what you mean by ‘get-out-of-jail-free card’ but you know I can’t prove a negative.
Your right, I won’t take your word for it. You’re not even trying to refute that works are necessary for salvation, you’re just restating what the scripture says creating a bias for faith that no more eliminates the importance of works than if you had let scripture speak for itself.
Matthew 25:31-46
And thus works are a necessary facet of christian theology: it really is that simple.
No.
I have no real interest in explaining their reasoning, but you can look it up yourself if you like.
And I have no memory of considering myself an a-kangaroo-ist prior to being introduced to one at the zoo. The simple truth is, however, that because I had no knowledge of kangaroos, I couldn’t possibly have a positive belief in their existence. Thus, I was an a-kangaroo-ist. The same logic can be applied to you.
I seem to remember a certain middle eastern tribe, a certain holy book, and certain stories contained there-in.
Atheist, Stalinist, Communist. They don’t sound anything alike to me, so I’m not sure where your confusion arises from.
No, it just indicates that the study might not be objective. I’ve seen studies that linked theism with very low IQ’s. How’d they do it? They just ignored all the theists that scored average or above.
Its a direct result of your statement:
Your use of the word ‘prior’ indicates that you don’t understand that time can be said to be merely another measure of dimensionality in addition to the 3 dimensional space your used to thinking about. If you think about the universe as a four dimensional object inserted into a five or greater mathematical space, the universe becomes static from the perspective of higher dimensions, much like a painting is to you. Thus, ‘prior’ to conception has no meaning in context to the eternal.
I just mention it because it discusses the temporal issues I was trying to point out.
My response still applies: ever been the target of a crush?
I have kept the passages in context. Nowhere have I stated that christians are saved by works alone or faith alone. I’ve merely pointed out that, in contrast to your claim, works are an integral part of christian theology.
KnowledgeIsPower:
I’m going out of town for the next 6 days and won’t have internet access. I would like to respond to your points but won’t be able to until next week. On the outside chance that you’re still interested, I’ll reply when I get back. If you’re not, then we can consider this thread dead.
jcc,
No, it’s considerable evidence that something strange happened. It’s far too anecdotal to draw any conclusion stronger than that.
Also, can you give an example of a personality trait that isn’t thought driven? What does that mean? To the best of my understanding, how we act is based on two things: Memories and current input. Change the memories or change the current input and we change the behavior.
I’m not saying it’s wrong, I’m saying the case hasn’t been made. I have no idea where this “double standard” statement comes from.
For a very quick intro:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis_%28book%29
Anything more than that and you really need to read VALIS. But again, it’s not an easy read, though you’ll get more out of it than I did since he uses lots of religious language. It’s also unclear what is supposed to be fiction and what isn’t, I haven’t researched it much.
In that case, I’ve never recognized another ‘presence’ behind the inexplicable things I’ve experienced.
My second quote doesn’t make a lot of sense since I had forgotten the context of the original quote. However, your response brought us back on topic.
At this point, you’re saying that Christians can’t be Existentialists because Existentialists believe “existence precedes essence” and that this is incompatible with the concept of a soul. I need to take a step back and ask why “existence precedes essence” is incompatible with the concept of a soul? Part of my problem is that I have no idea what definitions of “essence” and “soul” you’re using.
Furthermore, you said that there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that our souls existed before we were created. Is there anything to indicate that they weren’t? Or is the Bible silent on that?
Unfortunately, this method is fraught with guesswork. Tell me again who’s deciding which passages to take literally and which passages to take figuratively? Why is their method flawless? If it’s not flawless, then why are you so certain that your interpretation is the correct one?
It’s too bad that doesn’t clash with your definition of what a “true Christian” is.
Not if there’s a higher deity than God who actually did the Creating and God is now simply the vice-president without realizing it.
Let me re-phrase your quote:
“Presently, you have not chosen to believe one way or the other.”
Why would I want to enter into a relationship with someone if I don’t believe they exist?
Prove the base case first, then we’ll start talking specific deities and which one is most believable to me.